All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

In fact, the plaintiffs are children of the network F, and the network G is the second spouse of the network F (Marriage Report on March 21, 1987), and the defendant is the children of the network G.

The deceased on April 10, 2014, and the deceased on April 10, 2014, the plaintiffs, who are the spouse G and their children, jointly inherited the deceased F's property.

The net G died on October 16, 2015, and the defendant, a child, inherited the net G's property.

On August 7, 2012, the networkF donated the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 and No. 2, and on April 22, 2013, the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant real estate”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings by the plaintiffs' assertion that the act of donation of the real estate of this case to the deceased G infringes upon the plaintiffs' legal reserve of inheritance. Thus, the defendant who succeeded to the duty of return of legal reserve of inheritance to the deceased G is obligated to return to the plaintiffs the equivalent amount of legal reserve of inheritance.

Judgment

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's right to claim for the return of legal reserve of inheritance has expired one-year extinctive prescription under Article 1117 of the Civil Code, so the defendant's right to claim for the return

Article 1117 of the Civil Code provides that "When the person with the right to legal reserve of inheritance becomes aware of the fact that the inheritance was commenced and the gift or testamentary gift was made," which is the starting point of the short-term extinctive prescription period of the right to claim the return of legal reserve of inheritance under the provision of Article 1117 of the Civil Code,

It is reasonable to conclude that it was aware that the above gift could be returned, except in extenuating circumstances, in a case where the property of the inheritee was donated to someone else and the person having the right to legal reserve of inheritance recognizes the above fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da46346, Nov. 10, 2006).

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da66430, 66447 delivered on September 14, 2001, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, this is deemed to be reasonable.